Remember when Puerto Rico was raising hell about the US Navy using that nothing little island just off the coast of Puerto Rico for bombing practices, which they had used for the past 75 years? Demonstrations were held, Hollywood left wingers, Al Sharpton, and his fellow demagogues went down there to demonstrate to get the Navy out? I am sure it infuriated you just as it did me at the time. Wellllllllllllllll, here is our revenge.

Always be careful what you ask for, you just may get it!

One of the many headaches that the U. S. has had was the Puerto Rican Island of Vieques. In the waning years of the Clinton Administration, Protesters demanded that the US Navy abandon bombing and naval gun fire exercises that had taken place on the largely uninhabited island for nearly seventy years. Liberal icons bumped into one another to fly to Puerto Rico, boat over to the island, trespass (but never on a day that there was an exercise scheduled) and get arrested for the benefit of the New York Times or Newsweek. They included the

Reverend Al Sharpton,

Mrs. Jesse Jackson,

Joan Baez,

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,

Edward Olmos,

Michael Moore and

Ramsey Clark, just to name a few.

In 2002, the bombing exercises were transferred to an Air Force bombing range in central Florida, not far from the Jacksonville and Pensacola Naval Air Stations. In January, many of the protesters were back in Puerto Rico, celebrating the final bombing exercise on Vieques and waved Puerto Rican flags and placards that read

"U.S. Navy, get out of Puerto Rico."

The following Feb, Rumsfeld announced that the U.S. Navy will close the Roosevelt Roads Naval Air Station in Puerto Rico in 2004, eliminating
1200 civilian jobs as well as 700 military positions. This naval facility is estimated to have put nearly $300 million annually into the local economy.

The next day a stunned Governor Sila Calderon, held a news conference in San Juan, protesting the base closure as a serious blow to the Commonwealth's fragile economy. The governor stated that

"The people of Puerto Rico don't now or never did have an interest in closing the Vieques bombing range or the Roosevelt Roads naval base. We are interested in both staying in Puerto Rico."

When asked, the Commander-in Chief, Western Atlantic Command, said,

"Without Vieques, I see no further need for the facility at Roosevelt Roads. None."

On February 21, the Secretary of Defense also announced that starting this year, the U.S. European Command would begin moving most if not all of its active combat and support units from bases in Germany to others being established in Poland, The Czech Republic, Hungary and Turkey to "better position them for rapid deployment to likely hot spots in those parts of the world."

Immediately the business and government leaders in the German states of Hesse, Rhineland and Wurttemburg, protested the loss of nearly $6 billion in revenue each year from the bases and manpower to be displaced. A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry speculated that the move may be "what the Americans call 'payback' for the actions of this government in opposing Military action in Iraq.

There's a great scene in the film "An Officer and a Gentleman" where the drill instructor is screaming at the hero of the story, something to the effect of "Why'd you come here, to take this abuse", to which the hero responds, "I want to fly jets, sir."

The drill instructor looks at him like he's just stepped off the mother ship, and sneers, "You want to fly jets? My grandmother wants to fly jets!"

The idea, of course, is that although everybody wants to fly jets, not everyone has what it takes to do so.

George Bush has been derided for "defending the skies over Alabama" while John Kerry was off on his 4 month tour of heroism. I'd like to see Mr. Kerry make it thru Navy Pilot Training! As anyone who's ever seen "An Officer and a Gentleman" would know... and the reality is at least as tough as the Hollywood depiction... IT AIN'T EASY!

For that matter, GW is mocked as being "dumb", yet he has a postgraduate degree from a prestigious university. Kerry only holds a bachelors from Yale. Bush spent years in gainful employment in business. Kerry's never earned a dime that wasn't from the public dole -- or from a rich heiress!

It's time for people to look past the platitudes and the headlines, and dig a little deeper into the facts, the history, the record, the character, the vision and the proposals of the candidates before they vote in kneejerk fashion.

People who vote for an "ANYONE BUT..." candidate, usually get what they deserve. Unfortunately, they subject the rest of us to him as well! This country elected Clinton... twice. You'd think they'd have learned SOMETHING from that experience.

The Tempe debate on 10/13 was undoubtedly a turning point in the campaign. Bush was clearly on the offensive, while Kerry - the great debater - was kept off balance on playing defense. Bush was clear, concise, comfortable and congenial. He spoke TO the people of the country, not AT them. Kudos, Mr. President. You learned your lesson from the first debate very well!

After 3 debates, one thing should be clear -- and I'm amazed I haven't seen or heard this talked about or pointed out more -- Kerry has NOTHING to offer and he KNOWS IT! He hasn't openly admitted it, but in 3 debates his comments belie the underlying fact. Kerry is the "ANYBODY BUT BUSH" candidate. He has NOTHING to run on, except to be an alternative to Bush. There is a body of people who so despise the President that they'd vote for Saddam over him! Kerry clearly panders to this "constituency".

As I watched debate 3, I could often predict Kerry's answers. When Schieffer asked any "What would you do..." or "HOW will you do..." question, Kerry would, within 2 sentences, fall back to pointing out the perceived "failures" of "This President". Whenever the question sought to shine a light of truth on Kerry... he pulled out a (smoke and) mirror to reflect the spotlight onto President Bush, and to complain. This tactic was transparently pandering to the Bush Haters... while offering no new insight into Kerry himself! I would have loved for one of the questions to be framed "Without making reference to the President's performance, how would you handle..."
Again, we can truly apply the joke that's making the rounds, "Kerry tells us that W stands for wrong... but he won't tell us what John Kerry stands for!"
It's a shame that we have a cardboard cutout for an opposition candidate, who's only campaign slogan/tagline/platform is "If you don't like him... vote for me".

Can ANY Kerry supporter state the reason they're voting for him, WITHOUT citing their opposition to President Bush??

Now I've heard it all!! Looks like John F Kerry may have really stepped into it this time.

So, Mr. Kerry wants to give up the war on terror, and return to the happy-go-lucky days when terror was not a major focus, but a mere nuissance.

Hmm. On the one hand, losing 1000 lives in Iraq is a tragedy of epic proportions (it is INDEED a tragedy, as no life is insignificant - though the purpose is noble) - but the loss of 3000+ lives on 9/11 was just a "NUISSANCE"?

Was that not an unacceptable level of terror? Please explain, Mr Kerry, what you do consider an ACCEPTABLE level of terrorism? Well, maybe in his mind it IS acceptable. When laid next to the 50000+ lives lost in Vietnam (Did I mention JFK won medals over there?) he must think a few thousand here and there IS just a nuissance!

And let's shift the focus off the loss of life for a moment. Yes, the human toll was and is an important issue... and the Islamofascists would indeed like to kill as many of us as possible... yet they're not looking for wholesale slaughter. In fact their attacks are quite targeted - to disrupt our economy and our way of life. There is a REASON that the World Trade Center was hit... it was more than just symbolically a center of our economy and commerce... it was in reality a nervecenter for the capitalist society in which we live. The economic effects of 9/11 are STILL being felt! And lets not forget the intended targets of the Financial Centers around Independence Day. They want to hit our prosperity, not just put bodies in bags.

Kerry and the liberals totally miss the point of the war on terror, because they miss the point of the goals, methods and ideologies of the terrorists. There is a concerted effort to re-conquer the world for Islam! To reverse the crusades and drive the infidels off the face of the earth! And the biggest goal is to bring down the USA and its "decadent" capitalism and it's unforgivable support of Israel. They cannot conquer a superpower militarily. but they can hurt us economically... and they can weaken our resolve and our will to oppose them. And the liberals are willing accomplices - or at least "useful idiots" as the communists used to refer to American leftists.

There is no "acceptable" level of terrorism. The only way to deal with these Islamic Fundamentalist Fanatics is to take them out. Too bad JFK doesn't understand this. The American People had better understand it, and vote accordingly!

The President looked much better and more comfortable in in own skin in the Town Hall debate at Washington University. He held his own and made some effective hits.

Kerry had been repeditively, if monotonously, painted as a flip-flopper in the first debate. This time Bush effectively put the Liberal label on him. Pointing out votes against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, 98 votes for tax increases etc. probably made an impression on those previously uninformed. He also managed to show Kerry's 19 year record in the Senate as one with few accomplishments.

There were a number of missed opportunities however:

Why didn't he point out Kerry's record of supporting a nuclear freeze while Reagan was winning the cold war, voting against weapon systems and for gutting intelligence budgets etc?

When questioned on tax cuts, why not point out that EVERY time taxes are cut, REVENUES increase?

The "popular versus right" argument was a good one. Bush could have made the point more effectively had he pointed out that most any High School will have a banner on a wall bearing wise instruction: "Not everything that's popular will be right. Not everything that's right will be popular."

When Kerry was asked "what would you do" regarding Iraq, his response completely dodged answering ANYTHING about his intents, and ricocheted over to "This President has failed..." President Bush was goaded into responding to Kerry's points, rather than simply pointing out that Kerry DIDN'T answer the question and sitting down! There's a joke going around... "Kerry says that W stands for wrong... but he refuses to say what John F KERRY stands for!!" This was a perfect opportunity to cite it!

Also, Kerry was asked to assure pro-lifers that their tax dollars won't be used to support abortion. He again danced and dodged, throwing an obvious bone saying how he "respects" the questioner's position... but he DID NOT answer the question. Bush gave a weak reference to deciphering Kerry's answer, but he could again have LEAPT on his failure to answer. (Bravo to him for boldly stating that under HIS administration tax dollars would not support abortion.)

Keep watching Kerry. You will note that whenever someone tries to pin Kerry down with a "WHAT will you do?", or a "HOW will you do..." -- Kerry will avoid answering directly and will instead turn to criticizing "this President".

The President would do well to listen CLOSELY to the question, and then to Kerry's answers, with an ear toward "DID he answer the question"... and then CALL Kerry on it when he dodges.

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991.
It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men, however:

Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.

Ok, I'm the first to admit President Bush didn't match John Kerry for style and "smoothness". But then, Kerry is a trained debater... going back to Yale! Don't let that fact escape you... what exactly IS a trained debater? Well, it is one who can argue equally passionately and convincingly for EITHER side of an issue! What more perfect training could there have been for a Senator who can hold positions on every side of every issue and come off like whatever his current viewpoint is, it's the only logical position to take! Hmm, I wonder if the Kerry Thesaurus would list "smooth" and "slick" as synonymous!!

Wasn't it in Orwell's 1984 that the party line went from "we have always been at war with Europa" to "we have always been at peace with Europa" and both were presented as immutable facts? Orwell was 20 years ahead of time!

Oh, and another random thought...

George, in the next debate; how about playing up the Oil for Food scandal! After all, Kerry wanted us to cowtow to the French, Russians and Germans to "bring them along". But would they EVER have come along, given their vested interest in BLOCKING our efforts to depose Saddam? How many officials in the governments of these nations were on Saddam's PAYROLL and building their personal fortunes on the corrupt Oil for Food program?

And you can ease up on the "Kerry's a waffler"... we all KNOW that already! You don't want to sound like a one-trick pony!